Oilers win by a touchdown.

[Dooman]

I don't know why there's so much confusion about overtime losses. An overtime loss is .500, yes it's completely ignored. You got 1/2 points. 1/2 = 0.5

If you go 0-0-82 you're .500.

If you go 1-1-80 you're .500.

If you go 2-2-78 you're .500.

If you go 82-0-0 you're 82 games above .500.

If you go 0-82-0 you're 82 games below .500.

This is such basic math that it's ridiculous this conversation is still taking place.

I get what you are saying, but a season of 0-82-0 is only 41 games under .500, because you only needed to win half of those to break even.

Just like in 42-40-0, you only needed to lose one of those games.

If a team goes 0-2, you are saying they are two games under .500. But it's not accurate, because they only needed to win one of those to be even. It is accurate that they need two more wins, but again, then your ratio changes.

 

[oiLowe]

I don't know why there's so much confusion about overtime losses. An overtime loss is .500, yes it's completely ignored. You got 1/2 points. 1/2 = 0.5

If you go 0-0-82 you're .500.

If you go 1-1-80 you're .500.

If you go 2-2-78 you're .500.

If you go 82-0-0 you're 82 games above .500.

If you go 0-82-0 you're 82 games below .500.

This is such basic math that it's ridiculous this conversation is still taking place.

This! lol.

The argument is simply win % vs pts% end of story.

 

[Master Lok]

If you're 38 meters above the ground, how many meters of altitude must you lose before you are at the ground?

If you're 38 games above .500, how many games must you lose before you are at .500?

Red, no Blue! aaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhgg (monty python)

 

[Dooman]

The conversion boils down to "What needed to happen" vs "What needs to happen"

 

[NAF]

I don't know why there's so much confusion about overtime losses. An overtime loss is .500, yes it's completely ignored. You got 1/2 points. 1/2 = 0.5

If you go 0-0-82 you're .500.

If you go 1-1-80 you're .500.

If you go 2-2-78 you're .500.

Correct so far.

If you go 82-0-0 you're 82 games above .500.

If you go 0-82-0 you're 82 games below .500.

This is so spectacularly, astonishingly, magnificently wrong it makes my teeth hurt.

Let's go through this slowly, and you tell me where you're slipping up.

.500 = 1/2

so

1/2 x 82 = 41
--or--
.5 x 82 = 41


If you have won/lost 82 out of 82 games, you have won/lost 41 games more than half (41).


You're looking at a math problem of 82 x .5 and arriving at the answer of 82. That is astonishing to me.

If there are ten apples on the table and you take all of them, how many more than half have you taken?

The answer is five, because half of ten is five and five plus five is ten and dear God I can't believe I just had to type that out.

You're saying that the answer is ten because I'd have to go and get ten more apples to have the same number of apples as you.

You're saying that if you win 82 games in a season, you've won 82 games more than half of 82 games because you'd have to lose an additional, nonexistent 82 games to arrive at .500.

This is such basic math that it's ridiculous this conversation is still taking place.

It is utterly ridiculous, but not in the way you mean it.

 

[Aequitas]

Correct so far.



This is so spectacularly, astonishingly, magnificently wrong it makes my teeth hurt.

Let's go through this slowly, and you tell me where you're slipping up.

.500 = 1/2

so

1/2 x 82 = 41
--or--
.5 x 82 = 41


If you have won/lost 82 out of 82 games, you have won/lost 41 games more than half (41).


You're looking at a math problem of 82 x .5 and arriving at the answer of 82. That is astonishing to me.

If there are ten apples on the table and you take all of them, how many more than half have you taken?

The answer is five, because half of ten is five and five plus five is ten and dear God I can't believe I just had to type that out.

You're saying that the answer is ten because I'd have to go and get ten more apples to have the same number of apples as you.

You're saying that if you win 82 games in a season, you've won 82 games more than half of 82 games because you'd have to lose an additional, nonexistent 82 games to arrive at .500.




It is utterly ridiculous, but not in the way you mean it.

Homework. Next time you are watching tsn/sn when they say # above .500 use your math and see if its the same. It wont be because it is common and accepted that how he is doing games above .500 is what people mean.

 

[Dooman]

Homework. Next time you are watching tsn/sn when they say # above .500 use your math and see if its the same. It wont be because it is common and accepted that how he is doing games above .500 is what people mean.

You sure they aren't saying "to reach .500"?

 

[Oilfan2]

Homework. Next time you are watching tsn/sn when they say # above .500 use your math and see if its the same. It wont be because it is common and accepted that how he is doing games above .500 is what people mean.

What?

 

[LTIR]

You sure they aren't saying "to reach .500"?

nah... if a team is 20-10-0 .. they do say 10 games over 500...
Reason being that if they lose next 10 games they will be 500.

 

[NAF]

Homework. Next time you are watching tsn/sn when they say # above .500 use your math and see if its the same. It wont be because it is common and accepted that how he is doing games above .500 is what people mean.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

 

[Da McBomb]

how about that game last night

 

[JoeCool16]

how about that game last night

No man, math

 

[Dooman]

how about that game last night

Wait, what? The Oilers played? :-P

 

[Section337]

Wonder how quickly Dellow and his merry band turn this .500 issue into an advanced stat...

It basically is an advanced stat, since the NHL does not report or use it in any fashion.

 

[Diamondillium]

Wait, what? The Oilers played? :-P

No, the Oilers just presented us a math problem to do for homework.

 

[Aequitas]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Its on Wikipedia so it must be right.
He is using a common saying and how he describes the saying is how it works. Just because it may be illogical to you doesn't mean its invalid. It's just a quick way of knowing how a team is doing. Being inflammatory and acting like you are smarter then everyone just shows how little you know. Despite what you think we understand basic math its you who doesn't understand a pretty common reference

 

[Dooman]

Its on Wikipedia so it must be right.
He is using a common saying and how he describes the saying is how it works. Just because it may be illogical to you doesn't mean its invalid. It's just a quick way of knowing how a team is doing. Being inflammatory and acting like you are smarter then everyone just shows how little you know. Despite what you think we understand basic math its you who doesn't understand a pretty common reference

I just checked some tsn articles, and you're right. I guess that explains why they are sports guys and not math teachers :-P

 

[Aequitas]

I just checked some tsn articles, and you're right. I guess that explains why they are sports guys and not math teachers :-P

I never said it was mathematically correct its just the way its used.

 

[Diamondillium]

I think we should all make a pact to never use the phrase "games over .500" again on these boards, for the confusion that results from it is too dangerous.

 

[Dooman]

I never said it was mathematically correct its just the wag its used.

Ya, even found quotes from baseball gms using it that way.

Wow.

 

[CornKicker]

if one 7-0 win results in 8 pages of 25posts per page of math then it is safe to assume

=x(number of games to reach .500)*(25*8)

if x is the number of games we win i dont even want to log into HFoil after we win a cup

 

[friction]

I think we should all make a pact to never use the phrase "games over .500" again on these boards, for the confusion that results from it is too dangerous.

With this team, I don't think we'll have that problem

 

[herestohoping]

I don't know why there's so much confusion about overtime losses. An overtime loss is .500, yes it's completely ignored. You got 1/2 points. 1/2 = 0.5

If you go 0-0-82 you're .500.

If you go 1-1-80 you're .500.

If you go 2-2-78 you're .500.

If you go 82-0-0 you're 82 games above .500.

If you go 0-82-0 you're 82 games below .500.

This is such basic math that it's ridiculous this conversation is still taking place.

Actually going to step in here with a comment that surely will help everyone in this discussion..... 0/0 is indeterminate (it could be any value). not the best case to show.

 

[Raab]

Well I've learned one thing from this thread. Math is more entertaining for most posters then the oilers right now.

 

[nally]

100 game season.

50-50 equals a .500 record.

60-40 equals a .600 record or 10 games above .500.

70-30 equals a .700 record or 20 games above .500.

80-20 equals an .800 record or 30 games above .500.

90-10 equals a .900 record or 40 games above .500.

100-0 equals a 1.000 record or 50 games above .500.

No troll.

enough